War on Syria becomes the second option: Editorial

President Obama, accompanied by Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper Terrance Gainer, arrives on Capitol Hill today. Obama met with Senate Democrats and Republicans a day after an unexpected Russian proposal for Syria to avert a U.S. military strike by relinquishing control of its chemical weapons. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

What a fitting coincidence that this potential day of decision on the United States’ response to Syrian atrocities falls on the anniversary of 9/11.

It is the memory of the United States’ errant response to the terror of that morning a dozen years ago — the wearying wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — that leaves the nation hesitant to strike Syria. Hesitant despite wide agreement that the Bashar Assad regime must not be allowed to get away with gassing hundreds of citizen rebels. Hesitant because even if a missile strike is warranted, the past decade has taught our leaders to fear unintended consequences.

As Congress prepared to hear President Obama address the nation Tuesday night, most Southern California representatives told Los Angeles News Group reporters they were undecided or leaning against an attack on Syria, reflecting polls showing only a minority of Americans support military action.

Now, a key twist in this drama. After all of this speculation about negative unintended consequences — everything that could go wrong if the U.S. got involved in Syria’s civil war — the Obama administration’s threat to punish Assad seems to have had an unanticipated positive effect: Syria suddenly sounds eager to head off U.S. strikes through diplomacy, following a Russian proposal that the Arab country hand over its chemical weapons to United Nations monitors.

It is pointless at this moment for Congress to say yes or no to Obama’s original call for airstrikes designed to teach Assad a lesson for crossing a “red line” and degrade the Syrian leader’s ability to deliver chemical munitions.

That goes for this editorial board, too. At the right time, we would support airstrikes, targeted narrowly to achieve a limited goal, not risking U.S. ground troops or pilots. But this is not the right time — it is the time to try to make diplomacy work.

As the U.S. seeks yet again to define its international role, hesitancy may be an unfamiliar attitude, but it may be a healthy one. Perhaps the world’s lone military superpower should replace the overconfidence of the early months in Iraq with a more deliberate style. Obama’s decision 10 days ago to put the Syria question to Congress was the right step to ensure the nation thought through the issues and the people’s representatives gave their support for strikes — or not.

Momentum for military action first slowed when the British parliament voted down a resolution to join the U.S. in strikes. Obama has not said what he would do if the U.S. Congress voted against strikes, too.

Obama is right not to say, perpetuating whatever fear Assad might feel. But this president would be wrong to defy the will of the House and Senate.

That question may be moot now. In light of the diplomatic efforts, the Senate has delayed today’s scheduled vote to begin formal debate on a use-of-force resolution.

Advertisement

There is palpable relief that military action by the U.S. and its allies might be averted. This, of course, makes the big assumption that negotiators find another credible way to stop Assad from using chemical weapons again.

Twelve years after 9/11, the U.S. finds itself weighing alternatives in response to provocation. The nation is correctly hesitant.